Hearing on Nuclear Energy
and Hydroelectric Relicensing
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality
June 27, 2001

The Bottom LineOn June 27th, the House Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing
on relicensing nuclear and hydroelectric energy plants. The witnesses
-- representing the nuclear and hydroelectric industry and regulatory commissions
-- addressed the issues of relicensing nuclear plants, improving the entire
regulatory process, renewing the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), and relicensing
hydroelectric plants. Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) expressed the importance
of carefully exploring the issues surrounding nuclear energy and the possible
expansion of the nuclear industry. He, along with other committee
members, stressed the importance of a strong, comprehensive commission
to regulate the activities of power plants. Relicensing hydroelectric
power plants (along with nuclear energy) has gained support because of
its increasing potential as a clean energy source.

Meserve explained the role of the NRC is "to ensure the safe application
of nuclear technology if society elects to pursue the nuclear energy option."
While the plants must be relicensed by the commission in a lengthy process,
Meserve assured the committee that the NRC is well staffed and qualified
to evaluate plants. He emphasized the need to maintain a strong nuclear
research program and to support reauthorizating the Price-Anderson Act
(PAA).

Magwood also expressed overwhelming support for the PAA as necessary
to provide public protection and to encourage the growth of the nuclear
industry. He proposed recommendations to continue DOE indemnification
"without substantial change." He also discussed the often misleading
and exaggerated fears of nuclear energy. These pressing issues are
the main hurdle the nuclear industry faces in generating public support.

During the questioning of the panel, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) expresses
concerns that the PAA removes all liability and responsibility from the
plant owner in the event of an accident in all cases, even when the accidents
are the direct result of negligence. He strongly objects to the PAA
and feels that industry, not government, should provide nuclear energy
insurance.

The panelists addressed the issues of relicensing nuclear plants, improving
the entire regulatory process, and renewing the PAA. Most of the
witnesses expressed strong support for relicensing the current nuclear
plants and establishing the groundwork for more plants to be built -- such
as renewing the PAA to insure the safety and clean up in the event of a
nuclear accident.

Fertel discussed the key role nuclear energy will continue to play as
the demand for energy increases. Because of this projected increase,
it will be necessary to develop new reactor designs and technology.
Parme explained about how new reactor designs will result in higher efficiency
and safety levels. He feels the regulatory process needs to be a
amended to fairly and effectively evaluate new technology. Skolds
expressed similar concerns, then suggested changes that would respond better
to the growing nuclear industry and the evolving types of reactors.
These statements were echoed by other members of the panel.

Aurilio was the only witness to oppose the reauthorization of the PAA.
Despite her strong opposition to nuclear energy on the grounds of it being
"unsafe, unreliable and uneconomic," Aurilio provided recommendations to
reform the nuclear policy. She feels a reformed policy is necessary
to protect the public and should include a full compensation for accident
victims, and should focus on an increase in safety and accountability in
the case of negligence.

The third and fourth panel discussions focused on hydropower relicensing.
At the center of the ongoing debate is how to balance environmental concerns
of hydropower with its economic viability. On May 8th, FERC released
a congressionally mandated report that describes the commission's hydroelectric
licensing policies, procedures, and regulations. At this hearing,
Mr. Hebert, Jr. presented testimony regarding the
legislative recommendations in this report. Most notable was
a recommendation to "establish one-stop shopping at the Commission for
all federal authorizations." If implemented, this would give FERC
the authority "to reject or modify" regulations enacted by other agencies
"based on inconsistency with the Commission's overall public interest determination."
Environmental groups feel that this would jeopardize the "equal consideration"
statute of the Federal Power Act that forces FERC to consider both power
and non-power (fish and wildlife, recreation) benefits of a river.
Mr. Prescott, of Idaho Power, did not critique the FERC report directly,
but instead made a more general argument for making sure energy priorities
are not sacrificed for natural resources. Testimony from the GAO
suggests that FERC and Congress need more data to reach informed decisions
about process reforms.

The Bottom LineOn June 26th, the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to receive testimony
on proposed amendments to the Price-Anderson Act and nuclear energy production
and efficiency incentives. The Price-Anderson Act (PAA), "provides
a system of indemnification for legal liability resulting from a nuclear
incident in connection with contractual activity for DOE." The introduced
bills -- S.388,
S.472
and S.597
-- deal with reauthorizing the PAA, set to expire next year. The
National Energy Security Act of 2001 (S.388), introduced by Senator Frank
Murkowski (R-AK), authorizes higher spending for certain nuclear research
and development (R&D) programs, provides incentives to boost production,
and extends the PAA. The Nuclear Energy Supply Assurance Act of 2001(S.472),
introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), not only authorizes similar
programs as S.388 but also modifies the nuclear licensing requirement and
procedures.

Hearing SummaryThe witnesses who testified on the reauthorization of the PAA and nuclear
energy production and efficiency incentives included: Eric
Fygi, Deputy General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE);
Joseph
Gray, Associate General Counsel for Licensing and Regulation for the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
John
Bradburne, President and Chief Executive Officer of Fluor Fernald;
Marvin
Fertel, Senior Vice President of Business Operations for Nuclear Energy
Institute; John Quattrocchi,
Senior Vice President for Underwriting for American Nuclear Insurers; and
Erich
Pica, Economic Policy Analyst for Friends of the Earth.

The panel members were asked to provided recommendations for the authorization
of the PAA. Fygi expressed the DOE's strong support for renewing
PAA, noting its importance as a public protection measure that should be
continued without any substantial changes. Gray stated the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) supports a prompt reauthorization of the act
with minor revisions. On the issue of including production and efficiency
incentives, Gray expressed some concerns that short-term incentives and
goals might conflict with a long-term liability focus. Therefore,
long-term incentives would be better to encourage the growth of the nuclear
market.

Bradburne testified support for the PAA and emphasized the importance
of extending it prior to its expiration, since a break in the program could
be serious and costly. He explained that without the PAA there is
little incentive for contractors to get involved with government nuclear
project. It provides protection for the public in the event of a nuclear
plant accident. Fertel also supports legislation to renew the act
indefinitely, which he describes as comprehensive and effective support
for nuclear plant project that ensures funds to cover claims in an accident.
Quattrocchi outlined the success of the PAA during the Three Mile Island
accident in 1979, and express the opinion that the act should be extended
to provide liability protection to the nuclear industry and simulate more
private nuclear development.

Pica was the only witness to oppose the reauthorization of the PAA.
While he strongly opposes nuclear energy on the grounds of it being "unsafe,
unreliable and uneconomical," Pica provided recommendations to reform the
nuclear policy. He feels a new/reformed policy is necessary to protect
the public and should include a full compensation for accident victims,
as well as have a stronger focus on safety and accountability in the case
of negligence.

The committee members present appeared to support the reauthorization
of the act. The question and answer period primarily focused on clarifying
the licensing of plants and defining an appropriate length for extension
(10 yr. to indefinitely). The panel was also asked to comment on
the issue of nuclear waste.

- MMW

Hearing on the National Energy
Policy: Conservation and Energy Efficiency
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality
June 22, 2001

The Bottom LineOn June 22nd, the House Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing
to discuss conservation and energy efficiency in regards to the National
Energy Policy (NEP). While varying in their degree of support for
energy efficiency and conservation regulatory programs, most committee
members agree decreasing demand plays a key role in developing a balanced
energy policy. Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) emphasized the need for
increased energy efficiency, especially in government buildings because
"the federal government should take the lead." Witnesses testified
about current and developing government and industry energy efficiency
programs.

Hearing SummaryPANEL 1:The first panel on energy efficiency included: David Garman, Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE),
U.S. Department of Energy; and Frederick
H. Hoover, Jr., Director, Maryland Energy Administration, on behalf
of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO).

Garman testified on the conservation and energy efficiency recommendations
included in the NEP and then outlined the plans of the EERE to continue
technology research, development, demonstration and deployment activities
to reach those goals. He reviewed the progress and success of EERE
programs to increase energy efficiency in the transportation, industrial,
building and federal facilities sectors. He also noted the EERE strong
support for public/private partnerships in energy efficiency programs.
The EERE is currently evaluating all programs to provide more information
to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Congress in developing, "a balanced
energy technology research and development (R&D) portfolio that delivers
short-term, intermediate, and long-term energy benefits."

Hoover explained that NASEO strongly supports a balanced energy policy
with public and private partnership programs to increase energy efficiency.

Garman received the majority of the questions from the committee.
Several Democrat members asked for explanations and reasoning behind the
Bush administration's repeal of regulations to increase air conditioner
efficiency put on the books by the Clinton administration.

PANEL 2:The second panel consisted of Steven
Nadel, Executive Director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy; Mark
Wagner, Director for Johnson Controls, Inc; Dr.
Malcolm O'Hagan, President for the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association; Josephine
Cooper, President for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; David
Nemtzow, President for the Alliance to Save Energy; Gary
Swofford, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer-Delivery for Puget
Sound Energy; Mark
Rogers, Chief Executive Officer for SmartSynch, Inc.; Dr.
Dean Peterson, Center Leader for the Material Science Technology-Superconductivity
Technology Center, Los Alamos National Laboratories; Patricio
Silva, Project Attorney for the National Resources Defense Council;
and Jordan
Clark, President for the United Homeowners Association.

The witnesses provided testimony on how energy efficiency is improving
in industry and consumer usage, from automobiles to high-tech monitoring
systems of electricity consumed in personal homes and business. One
important distinction several of the witnesses made is that energy efficiency
is the preferable term to mean ways to stretch the available energy and
do more with less. More companies and groups are moving away from
promoting "conservation," because the term carried the more negative connotation
of doing without or having to make huge sacrifices.

Other witnesses discussed promoting a market-based solution for energy
efficiency by providing tax credits, loans and partnerships to switch to
using the low-energy technologies including efficient or low-emission automobiles.
With increased market demand, these technologies will be better integrated
into the market. For example, Cooper and the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers feel raising CAFE standards would be bad for the environment
since the available supply would be controlled, thus limiting consumer
choices.
High-efficiency and hybrid cars should be integrated into the market by
increasing incentives, such as tax credits, to encourage buying the new
technology.

Several panelists also outlined how improved efficiency programs would
be economically beneficial. Because people will be paying less on
their energy bills, they will have more money to spend. Many energy-efficient
technologies are already developed or being developed. Currently
many of these higher efficiency technologies are expensive. As people
move toward more energy-efficient lifestyles to save on energy, the price
of new "better" technology will be driven down by demand increases.

- MMW

Hearing on the National
Energy Policy--Report of
the National Energy Policy Development Group:
Administration View
House Science Committee
June 21, 2001

The Bottom LineSecretary of Energy Spencer Abraham presented testimony on President
Bush's National Energy Policy. Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)
stated the plan was broadly balanced, "but specific recommendations were
often disconcerting and biased toward production." Additionally there
was concern that the administration's budget provided little money for
research and development (R&D) despite talk in the energy report about
how valuable R&D is to our national energy policy. Secretary
Abraham defended this discrepancy by remarking that the president's budget
was submitted before the National
Energy Plan (NEP) was complete, and that the president may still make
further budget recommendations. In the meantime, Boehlert has promised
to authorize more funding through the Science Committee's energy legislation.
Other committee members asked questions about air-conditioning efficiency
standards, clean-coal technologies, renewable fuels, nuclear power, and
new oil drilling in U.S. coastal waters.

Hearing SummaryIn opening remarks, Chairman Boehlert emphasized the lack of funding
for energy research but was glad to see energy policy addressed by the
Administration. He also mentioned that NEP statements regarding
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were "confusing" and should
be clarified. Ranking Member Ralph Hall (D-TX) concurred about the
poor funding for energy research. He also stated his strong support
for developing fossil fuel resources and improving clean-coal technology.

Secretary Abraham said early in his testimony that, "[Work in science]
will play a major role in meeting today's energy challenges." He
provided an overview of the president's energy plan, claiming that it balances
increased supplies of energy with improved conservation and efficiency.
Abraham then said that twenty of the recommendations contained in the NEP
required legislative action, and other areas would need Congress' cooperation
in implementing. Some of the more controversial recommendations
made in the NEP include drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR), building 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants, and focusing more research
efforts on fossil fuel technologies than alternative energy sources.

During Q & A, committee members regularly asked why the NEP recommends
cutting energy research funding when the U.S. is facing an energy crisis.
Abraham responded that the president's budget was released before the NEP
report. Also, the Department of Energy is waiting for an internal
review to be completed in July before it recommends any changes to the
President. Other topics for discussion were nuclear power, coastal
drilling in the Southeastern U.S. and renewable sources of energy.

-CLE

Hearing on the the President's
National Energy Policy: Hydrogen and
Nuclear Energy Research and Development
Legislation
House Science Subcommittee on Energy
June 14, 2001

The Bottom LineOn June 14th, the House Science Subcommittee on Energy held the second
of two hearings to discuss the President's National Energy Policy.
This hearing addressed hydrogen
and nuclear energy research and development (R&D) legislation introduced
by committee members. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony
on reintroducing and extending legislation for hydrogen and nuclear energy
R&D as part of the recommendations put forth by the National Energy
Policy Development (NEPD) Group. Chairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
expressed his overwhelming support for nuclear power as a safe and reliable
energy source and strongly backs nuclear energy R&D legislation.
Other members, including Ranking Member Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) noted serious
concerns with nuclear power. The committee showed support for hydrogen
energy as a potential clean energy source. However, further R&D
is needed to lower the costs, transportation, and storage of hydrogen for
it to be a viable energy source.

Hearing SummaryThe panel on hydrogen energy R&D and legislation included: David
Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. H. Hubbard, Chair, Committee on Programmatic
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Power Technologies,
National Research Council; Arthur
Katsaros, Group Vice President-Engineered Systems and Development,
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.; David
Haberman, Chairman, DCH Technology, Inc.; and Dr.
Peter Lehman, Director, Schatz Energy Research Center.

While hydrogen energy is not a short-term fix to the energy issues,
the witnesses presented it as a potential long-term option. Hydrogen
energy technology converts hydrogen into energy with the by-product of
steam (water). Hydrogen technology R&D support in the past has
come from both government and industry programs. Currently the major
problems with hydrogen is the high costs and difficulty associated with
storing and transporting liquid and gaseous hydrogen gas.

The panel emphasized the need to continue joint government and industry
support of hydrogen R&D to develop it as a cost efficient future energy
source, and expressed strong support for the reauthorization of the hydrogen
R&D legislation. The proposed Robert S. Walker and George E.
Brown, Jr. Hydrogen Energy Act of 2001, a reauthorization of the Spark
M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990,
will authorize funding to support hydrogen R&D and demonstration projects.

The committee members expressed support for hydrogen as a possible future
energy source; however, some voiced concerns about the proposed budget
cuts to renewable energy R&D programs. Garman pointed out that
the proposed budget came out before the National Energy Policy (NEP) was
complete and now that the NEP recommendations are available, the budget
policies should be reviewed.

Prior to the second panel, Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Rep. Judy
Biggert (R-IL) testified on provisions contained in their nuclear energy
R&D legislation. H.R.
1679, Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 200, introduced by Graham,
"ensure[s] that nuclear energy continues to contribute to the supply of
electricity in the Unites States," by investing in nuclear science R&D
and education. H.R.
2126, Department of Energy Nuclear Science and Engineering Act, introduced
by Biggert, encourages students to become nuclear scientists by providing
financial support to University nuclear science programs. Biggert
explained "this legislation is important to universities and national security,"
and emphasized the fact the U.S. is a leader in nuclear research and therefore
must continue to educate and encourage students to pursue nuclear science
as a field of study.

The second panel on nuclear energy R&D legislation consisted of
William
D. Magwood, IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology,
DOE; Joe Colvin, President, Nuclear Energy Institute; John
Kotek, Argonne National Laboratory-West and Co-Chair, Public Policy
Committee, American Nuclear Society; and Anna
Aurilio, Legislative Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The witnesses expressed varying views on the issue of nuclear energy
and support of the introduced nuclear energy R&D legislation.
Magwood testified, "nuclear energy is a key element of our energy portfolio
. . . [and] remains the largest source of emission-free electricity in
the United States and for the first time in over a decade, it surpassed
coal-fired plants as the leader in low-cost energy production." Colvin
described nuclear energy as the only expandable energy resource that can
provide large amounts of electricity with a minimal threat to the environment,
and supports legislation to improve the science of nuclear energy.
Kotek gave testimony to clarify the issues and risks associated with nuclear
energy in hopes to alleviate unfounded or exaggerated concerns.

Aurilio's objection to the nuclear energy R&D legislation outlined
several problems with expanding nuclear energy. Nuclear plants are
very expensive to build and maintain. She argues, "H.R. 1679 will
cost taxpayers at least $357.2 million in unjustified and dangerous nuclear
programs for FY2002." In addition more nuclear plants will create
large amounts of nuclear waste with no approved depository. She explained
that even if Yucca Mountain was approved as a geological waste repository,
it would not be large enough to hold all the new waste created by the increased
number of nuclear plants proposed in the NEP.

Despite Aurilio's arguments, Bartlett continued to express his strong
support for nuclear energy and the introduced legislation. Ranking
Member Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), who does not support nuclear energy, addressed
the panel about nuclear waste concerns and the potential for environmental
hazardous accidents.

- MMW

Hearing on the President's
National Energy Policy: Clean Coal
Technology and Oil and Gas Research
and Development
House Science Subcommittee on Energy
June 12, 2001

The Bottom LineOn Tuesday, May 12th, the House Science Subcommittee on Energy held
the first of two hearings on the President's National Energy Policy.
This hearing addressed clean coal technologies along with oil and gas research
and development (R&D). The purpose
of the hearing was to understand the technology and R&D efforts in
fossil fuels as part of the congressional analysis of the President's National
Energy Policy. Oil and gas R&D focuses on improving recovery
efficiency of proposed and existing wells. There was also a strong
emphasis in improving efficiency and conservation measures and the importance
of developing a balanced energy plan.

Hearing SummaryChairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) gave an overview of the current state
of the domestic fossil fuel reserves. Fossil fuels are the dominant
energy sources used by the U.S economy. Increasing demands for energy
reserves require that all available sources and technology must be employed
to ensure a stable and environmentally conscience energy supply.
The most abundant fossil energy source is coal, and predictions indicate
a higher usage of this resource in the future. Therefore, clean coal
technologies are necessary to develop production plans that address emission
and environmental controls.

The witnesses on clean coal technology panel included: Robert
S. Kripowicz (pdf format), Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy
at the U.S. Department of Energy; Ben
Yamagata, Executive Director of the Coal Utilization Research Council
(CURC); James
E. Wells, Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S.
General Accounting Office; Katherine
Abend, Global Warming Associate and the U.S. PIRG; and John
S. Mead, Director of the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois
University-Carbondale.

The panel discussion focused on the progress of clean coal technology
projects that have been funded by the Department of Energy, state governments,
and industry. Supporters of these programs indicate new technology
will substantially reduce pollution, increase coal burning efficiency,
and improve cost effectiveness in the next 10 to 15 years. Cleaner
coal technologies will allow for the abundant domestic coal resources to
be used to produce much of the projected energy demand with lower impacts
on the environment.

Abend noted several objections and concerns to clean coal projects.
She emphasized the need for stricter coal emissions and air quality regulations,
because even cleaner coal technologies produce dirty pollutants such as
NOx, particulate, mercury, and greenhouse gases such as CO2
into the air. Abend objects to federal subsidized clean coal programs
and instead recommends R&D focus on energy efficiency and renewable
energy resources. Finally, Abend commented on the mismanagement of
many of the clean coal projects, further supporting her proposal to reject
clean coal projects that pose health and environmental threats.

The witnesses on the panel to discuss oil and gas R&D included:
Virginia
B. Lazenby, Chairman and CEO of Bretagne, GP, on behalf of the Independent
Petroleum Association of America; Paul
Cuneo, Vice President and Chief Information Officer of Equiva Services,
LLC; Dr. Craig W. Van Kirk, Professor of Petroleum Engineering and Head
of the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Colorado School of Mines;
Dr.
Alan R. Huffman, Manager of Conoco's Seismic Imaging Technology Center;
and Robert S. Kripowicz (from panel I).

The oil and gas R&D efforts focuses on improving exploration technology,
increasing production efficiency, and reducing impacts on the environment.
Cuneo explained new technologies used have reduced emission levels from
refineries, improved pipelines and fuel cells and advanced vehicle technology.
Van Kirk reported on innovative technologies for locating more oil and
gas, developing resources found in challenging environments, improving
the recovery form known oil and gas reservoir, and conducting safer, more
efficient operations. Finally, Huffman proposed a plan for the creation
of a United States Energy Center (USCE), a joint government and industry
committee to "work toward solutions for a stable and secure energy supply
for the United States while improving safety and enhancing environmental
protection."

Bartlett was extremely supportive of the USCE idea to address the energy
issues and continued to remind the panel and committee members of his strong
support for conservation and efficiency as a key part of a balanced energy
policy. Other issues raised by the committee were concerns over the
R&D cuts in the president's proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2002.
The panel responded that the budget allows for energy efficiency tax credit.
They were confident that with the National Energy Policy now complete fossil
energy R&D will receive the necessary support.

- MMW

Oversight Hearing on the National
Energy Policy
House Resources Committee
June 6, 2001

The Bottom LineOn June 6, 2001, the House Resources Committee held an oversight hearing
to discuss the National Energy Policy with Secretary of the Interior Gale
Norton. Chairman James
Hansen (R-UT) opened the hearing by emphasizing the importance of addressing
the National Energy Policy and devising a plan to deal with current and
future energy issues. He stated that with the demand for energy increasing
at an enormous rate, it is no longer realistic to deny current and future
energy problems or to believe we can conserve our way out of them.
Since the US economy is based on fossil fuel energy, further exploration
our petroleum resources is necessary to increase the domestic energy supply
and establish an energy policy to deal with the current and future energy
demands. The hearing was well attended by the committee members.

Hearing SummaryGale
Norton, Secretary of the Interior, was asked to provide testimony and
discuss the National Energy Policy with the committee. Secretary
Norton opened by emphasizing the National Energy Policy's overall goal
of developing a secure energy supply while protecting the environment.
Of immediate concern is the increasing gap between domestic supply and
demand for oil and natural gas over the next decade. Many potential
reservoirs are located on federal land, both on- and offshore, and utilizing
these reserves is a necessity in dealing with the ever-growing energy deficit
(increasing demand with decreasing supplies) and easing some of the U.S.
dependency on foreign oil.

In following the basic strategy to increase the domestic energy supply,
the National Energy Policy - presses for the exploration of reserves on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Alaskan North Slope, including
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) and Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. For each of these
areas, Norton reviewed the estimated expected recoverable oil and gas reserves
as well as addressing the environmental impact of drilling in these areas.
She argued that with advances in technology, exploratory work and drilling
projects in these areas are possible with few predicted long-term ecological
effects. Technological advances will also enhance the efficiency
and amount of recoverable oil and gas out of current reserves.

The National Energy Policy supports an increase in coal mining activities,
since coal is one of the most abundant energy resource in the United States.
The use of renewable and alternative energy supplies, such as wind, hydropower,
biomass, solar, and geothermal, are also necessary to meet the growing
supply needs, and bonuses from ANWR exploration would go to fund research
into these alternative energy resources.

The committee addressed Secretary Norton with support, issues and concerns
with the policy. Several Democratic representatives expressed concerns
about the need to focus on conservation and more efficient use of energy
to lower energy demand, not just increase production to fill the demand.
Offshore drilling regulations and the Department of Interior's stance on
lifting the moratorium were also mentioned by several Democrats.
The general view of the Republican representatives was one of support for
ANWR and other exploratory projects that address the nation's energy demands,
stating that to believe the U.S. can conserve its way out of this energy
crisis as unrealistic.